VII Congreso Español de Ciencia Política y de la Administración. 40 Democracia y Buen Gobierno. Public Opinion and Public Sphere: from Modernity to Post- Democracy? Giorgio Grossi (University of Milan-Bicocca) GRUPO DE TRABAJO 14: Comunicación Política. VII Congreso Español de Ciencia Política y de la Administración. 41 Democracia y Buen Gobierno. rd At the start of the 3rd millenium, two trends seem to characterise not only the Western world, but the entire global society: the growing recourse to appeals to public opinion, the mobilisation of opinions, and the measuring of individual and collective attitudes seems to exist side by side with the crisis in the institutions of representative democracy, social fragmentation, the vacuum in the public (especially national) sphere, the deficit in political participation. All this is taking place within a process of "glocalisation" in which media communication and the new ICT information technologies play an increasingly pervasive, strategic role. The aim of this paper is to seek to analyse this apparent contradiction, highlighting both the historical origin of the concepts of public opinion and public sphere, and their transformation within western society to the present situation, in which the very idea of democratic society - and hence the role of public opinion as a founding institution of the public sphere - seems to be cracking, due to the social processes and technological transformations which are marking the start of the new century. 1. The origins of modernity: the founding link between public opinion and media The relationship between media and public opinion today seems to be widely recognised as typical of post-industrial societies in late modernity. When we observe the political and social processes which mark both national societies and the global world, we almost always find a close link between the media system - old and new media -, information and symbolic flows and dynamics of opinion. We speak, for example, about mediacracy (Meyer 2002) and videocracy (Sartori 1999) to negatively stigmatise the transformations of representative democracy resulting from the central role played by the media and opinion polls in the processes of influencing and constructing consensus, to the prediction of a transition towards a "post-democratic" society" (Crouch 2003). Or, in the opposite direction, we refer to the strong democracy, to direct democracy with the participation of all citizens, made possible by the spread of the Web and the new interactive media (Barber 1984, Bentivegna 2002). Or we also thematise the need for a "deliberative democracy" as the only response to the crisis in representative democracy and its loss of collective "discursiveness" (Sampedro 2000), and even allude to the emergence of a World Public Opinion - as in the case of the opposition to the Iraq War in 2003 - as a new subject of political confrontation (and control) in a globalised world (Grossi 2004). 2 GRUPO DE TRABAJO 14: Comunicación Política. VII Congreso Español de Ciencia Política y de la Administración. 42 Democracia y Buen Gobierno. In any case, scholars and experts now seem to have acquired the conviction that this binomial lies at the hearts of the political and social processes characterising our everyday lives: "in a society every member is part of two communication networks: an inter-individual network (personal relations) and an institutional network, as media consumers. Media discourses and public opinion are often considered separately… In reality, public opinion is inseparable from the media" (Lazar 1995: 4). This awareness of the close link between media and public opinion, however, has not always been so explicit and shared. There have been periods - during the last century - when focus was placed more on one phenomenon, public opinion (in the thirties, for example) or on the other, the media (in the forties and fifties). As there have also been historical phases in which the causal link was emphasised - when the "power of the media" was mentioned - or minimised - underlining instead the autonomy of trends and attitudes, their independence from persuasive messages ("limited effects"). But what has often been lacking is the recognition of the founding link which exists between media, public opinion and democracy in that historical period - to which we still belong, although with different interpretations and conceptualisations - we call modernity . The 1 underlying thesis in this paper is that to properly understand the role and function of the media in our society we must go back to the origins of modern society and highlight the historical-social link between the coming of the media of mass communication, the birth of public opinion and the theory of democracy. Each of these three fundamental dimensions of modernity can only be understood in relation to the others, and consequently, the very meaning of modernity - as long as this concept is able to adequately interpret the political and social dynamics of our age - depends largely on the interrelation and reciprocal influence of these three factors. In order to truly grasp the structural valence of the media in the processes of socialisation and cognitive and symbolic governance of collective dynamics, it is therefore necessary to firstly go back briefly to the historical roots of the form of society which characterises western tradition: the liberal-democratic society arising from the French and the American Revolutions at the end of the eighteenth century, then progressively evolving into representative democracy on a capitalistic basis, which was consolidated in the twentieth century, also in competition with the authoritarian and revolutionary regimes (Fascism, Nazism, Communism) which opposed its dominance. Of the authors who focussed and thematised this founding link, we may dwell above all on two: Habermas (1974) and Thompson (1998). In what may now be considered a classic work of contemporary sociology - Strukturwandel der Oeffenlikheit -, the German scholar puts forward the hypothesis that in order to explain the birth of modern society - a mixture of bourgeois revolution, GRUPO DE TRABAJO 14: Comunicación Política. 3 VII Congreso Español de Ciencia Política y de la Administración. 43 Democracia y Buen Gobierno. development of capitalism, the coming of democracy, spread of the press - it is necessary to introduce, as we know, the concept of public sphere. With this term Habermas intends to identify a new social space, collocated between civil society (of which it is however a part) and the state, within which private citizens - emerging middle class, illuminated intellectuals, etc. - claim both the right to public discussion, and to the formation of a collective approach and a "general will", and, lastly, the demand for "publicity" of the decision-making process and the control of power. There cannot therefore be democracy (i.e. revolution against privilege) without a public sphere, and there cannot be rational confrontation and affirmation of rights without a public space, accessible to all, in which one or the other may be exercised. But what can we call the output, the result of this process - at the same time critical and emancipative, but also rational and universal - which develops from civil society as a new form of intermediation between individual interests and state, between reforming instances and control/transparency of power, between reason and revolution? The term which was coined to define this new phenomenon during the eighteenth century - by Rousseau around 1744 but also by Necker, the Finance Minister under Louis XV1, in 1787 - was that of public opinion. It became in turn the foundation of democracy , the lymph of popular sovereignty, the "incorruptible tribunal" to 2 which all may appeal , but also the ambit of "criticism" of power, the result of the "rational 3 dialogue" against obscurantism, the process in which the "general will" is formed against partisan interests. Public opinion - a typically immaterial phenomenon which, however, appears as a cognitive and symbolic process equipped with "potential agency", i.e. able to enact, to practise publicly, to manifest the consequences of its direction - thus becomes one of the pillars of modern 4 society because it embodies the values of the enlightenment and bourgeois revolution, of democracy and democratic participation, of universalism and individualism, of the division of powers but also the demand for "transparency" and "publicity". It is a banner to raise, a foundation to invoke, a space for liberation, a form of generalised and un-negotiable empowerment. As Habermas had underlined, however, and as Thompson (1998) was to argue in greater depth, a similar transformation of social relations, the ambits of sociality and political claims could not have taken place without the advent of the communication revolution represented by the birth of the media. On this subject Thompson, in concluding his list of the characteristics of the media, 1Some speak today of "second modernity", "radical modernity", or even "post-modernity" to define the current phase of development of western society (Lyotard 1981, Giddens 1994, Salamone 1999). 2 Already in 1690 Locke speaks of a "law of opinion and reputation" as the foundation of social life; in 1740 Hume theorises that every government is founded on opinion. 3 Bentham, writing in 1816, speaks of public opinion as the "tribunal" of politics, which may make mistakes, but remains "incorruptible" (Matteucci 1997).